The Instigator
Axiom
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
sensibletheism909
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion Is Still Morally Acceptable Even If the Fetus Is A Human

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Axiom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,455 times Debate No: 24869
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Axiom

Con

I will be taking the Con side of this debate. If you accept, you will be taking the 'Pro' (in favor of) side.

In this debate we are presupposing that the fetus, as so many pro-lifers assert, is indeed a human, or at least has the intrinsic value of a human. We are also assuming that all humans have a right to life and anyone who takes that right from them without due process in a court of law is morally reprehensible.

The reason for this debate: Some pro-choicers feel it is necessary to first prove that a fetus isn't human, doesn't have value and is equal to a tumor or skin blemish. But they then go onto say that it should be the woman's choice if the fetus stays in her body or not. I find that once you've established the first part of your argument (that the fetus is like a tumor), the second part is irrelevant. If a fetus is equal to a tumor, no one disputes a woman's right to remove it. Ie. No one goes up in arms if a woman is trying to rid herself of cancer.

In this debate we are arguing about a woman's right over her body. Should a female be forced to sustain the life of another human inside her? Should she be responsible for its life? Would it be murder if a woman simply severed the cord and removed the fetus from her womb (Simply moving it instead of stabbing, poisoning, dismembering or decapitating.)

I hope this is clear enough and I look forward to our debate.
sensibletheism909

Pro

I accept, present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Axiom

Con


As Con, I will present the basic outline of my points against abortion if a fetus is human. My opponent will present his arguments for abortion being permissible in this scenario. Refutation, rebuttal and then conclusion.


Here we go:


My opening case will not be long, because until I hear my opponents justifications for terminating a human life, I will not be able to argue against it. The legal and moral standard is that murder is wrong. So my opponent will have to prove that aborting a human life is not murder, but something else entirely. (Self-defense, protecting one's body or property.)


Self-defense: In the case of a healthy pregnancy your life is not under immediate threat and you are not in danger. So this isn't an acceptable reason.


Protecting one's body: You have a right to your own body. You have a right to your own property. Both are true, but cases exist where these rights are abolished. For instance, the third amendment of the U.S. constitution states that soldiers may not live in a home without an owner's permission, but in war time he may be allowed that right by the law.


Also, the law provides instances where cops may legally commandeer someone's car or vehicle to give pursuit to a criminal. The thinking behind this is that it is better to deny the civil liberty (possession of personal property) of one person than to put the rest of society in danger by allowing the fleeing criminal freedom. So this establishes that there is legal and moral precedent for depriving civil liberties.


Finally, let's imagine a scenario where you have a spaceship in space and find a stowaway on board. It is your spaceship. The stowaway is consuming your food, breathing your air. But that doesn't mean you are legally or morally allowed to put the stowaway out into space. He will die. And while you aren't committing an overt violent action (you are simply removing him from your property) you will still be guilty of homicide.


I would say that in the case of a pregnancy it is the same issue. But, once again, I must make it clear that until I hear my opponent's arguments I cannot address the issue.


I look forward to hearing your rebuttal.


sensibletheism909

Pro

sensibletheism909 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Axiom

Con

FF by opposition. Too bad, I was looking forward to an interesting debate.
sensibletheism909

Pro

sensibletheism909 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Axiom

Con

Another forfeit. Vote Axiom.
sensibletheism909

Pro

sensibletheism909 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Axiom 4 years ago
Axiom
Hopefully, we can both debate the intention of the round. I, as Pro, am presenting the argument for the rights of a human being. I fully expect Con to provide an adendum that states there are other rights as well (Right to property, right to one's body etc...) based on the same rights I have provided by introducing the predecent of a court-of-law. If I had done it for him, I would be doing his job.
The wording of the debate is sound, while it's presentation or technical construct may be lacking (this is only my second debate.)
Of course, if my opponent refuses to present a case of the rights of an individual (free will, freedom to choose) then the debate will be boring.
Posted by Telanian 4 years ago
Telanian
16kadams, no you couldn't. Not if you actually accept that paragraph. If you accept that a fetus is a human being, and if you accept that all human beings have a right to life and that anyone who takes that right without due process in court is morally reprehensible, then logically you have no choice to conclude that abortion is morally reprehensible.

Of course the real issue here (and I know this is what you're getting at Axiom, even though in my view you've phrased it badly) is whether or not the fetus' right to life can ever be overridden by other factors. In other words, is it always morally reprehensible to terminate a fetus, given that it has a right to life like any other human being, or there are some situations where it is morally acceptable to overrule this right?

That is the issue here. That is the debate. Asking people to assume that it is always morally unacceptable completely shuts down the debate!
Posted by Axiom 4 years ago
Axiom
The debate is if women have a right to their bodies that is paramount to another's right to use their body as the sole means to survival.
I haven't defined anything beyond how the courts define things. I am simply saying we are presupposing that murder is wrong. Establishing a moral precept, so this debate doesn't devolve into ,"life has no meaning' "yes it does.'
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
You can still argue pro and have a good chance of winning, depending on how much Axiom has actually spent into learning the abortion issue. Pro-choice philosophers accept the life and humanity of the unborn and still argue that abortion is morally permissible.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
No, I could easily argue pro telanian.
Posted by Telanian 4 years ago
Telanian
"In this debate we are presupposing that the fetus, as so many pro-lifers assert, is indeed a human, or at least has the intrinsic value of a human. We are also assuming that all humans have a right to life and anyone who takes that right from them without due process in a court of law is morally reprehensible."

So in other words, you've set this debate up so that you win by definition...
Posted by Axiom 4 years ago
Axiom
First round for acceptance.
Posted by ldcon 4 years ago
ldcon
I might take this one. Is first round for acceptance?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
First round arguments?
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
I suppose I could offer to argue devil's advocate, but I hate doing that in the abortion issue because I'm afraid I may convince someone to become pro-choice, or to strengthen their pro-choice resolve.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 4 years ago
BennyW
Axiomsensibletheism909Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Axiomsensibletheism909Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: :)